[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S67-S85]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S67]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

    STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--Continued

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 69. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the 
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed 
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain 
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on 
behalf of the United States during World War II.
  Our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives 
on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the 
validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the 
opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I 
believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is 
important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino 
veterans and their families who participated in making us the great 
nation that we are today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 69

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       (a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person 
     who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall determine whether such person performed any 
     military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which 
     qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or 
     other benefits under the laws of the United States.
       (b) Information To Be Considered.--In making a 
     determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider all information and evidence 
     (relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) that is 
     available to the Secretary, including information and 
     evidence submitted by the applicant, if any.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

       (a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary of 
     the Army shall issue a certificate of service to each person 
     determined by the Secretary to have performed military 
     service described in section 1(a).
       (b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of 
     service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for 
     the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively 
     establish the period, nature, and character of the military 
     service described in the certificate.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

       An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or 
     parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall 
     be treated as an application submitted by such person.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

       The Secretary of the Army may not consider for the purpose 
     of this Act any application received by the Secretary more 
     than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Army shall prescribe regulations to 
     carry out sections 1, 3, and 4.

     SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans' benefits 
     by reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``World War II'' means the period 
     beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 
     1946.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 70. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of 
Memorial Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our efforts to accommodate many 
Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost 
sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would 
restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half 
mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the 
President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans 
Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help 
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they 
have made on behalf of our Nation
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 70

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF 
                   MEMORIAL DAY.

       (a) Designation of Legal Public Holiday.--Section 6103(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended in the item 
     relating to Memorial Day by striking ``the last Monday in 
     May.'' and inserting ``May 30.''.
       (b) Observances and Ceremonies.--Section 116 of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The last Monday in 
     May'' and inserting ``May 30''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) calling on the people of the United States to observe 
     Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies for showing respect for 
     American veterans of wars and other military conflicts; 
     and''.

[[Page S68]]

       (c) Display of Flag.--Section 6(d) of title 4, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the last Monday in 
     May;'' and inserting ``May 30;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 73. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National 
Center for Social Work Research.
  Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services 
throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons 
suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.
  The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information 
about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with an 
emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.
  While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work 
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other 
federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of 
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and 
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of 
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral 
and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, 
the elderly, and others.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we 
must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers 
to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social 
Work can provide in facilitating their work.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 73

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Center for Social 
     Work Research Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) social workers focus on the improvement of individual 
     and family functioning and the creation of effective health 
     and mental health prevention and treatment interventions in 
     order for individuals to become more productive members of 
     society;
       (2) social workers provide front line prevention and 
     treatment services in the areas of school violence, aging, 
     teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile 
     crime, and substance abuse, particularly in rural and 
     underserved communities; and
       (3) social workers are in a unique position to provide 
     valuable research information on these complex social 
     concerns, taking into account a wide range of social, 
     medical, economic and community influences from an 
     interdisciplinary, family-centered and community-based 
     approach.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(b)(2) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(H) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
       (b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

         ``Subpart 7--National Center for Social Work Research

     ``SEC. 485J. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

       ``The general purpose of the National Center for Social 
     Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center') 
     is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of targeted 
     research concerning social work methods and outcomes related 
     to problems of significant social concern. The Center shall--
       ``(1) promote research and training that is designed to 
     inform social work practices, thus increasing the knowledge 
     base which promotes a healthier America; and
       ``(2) provide policymakers with empirically-based research 
     information to enable such policymakers to better understand 
     complex social issues and make informed funding decisions 
     about service effectiveness and cost efficiency.

     ``SEC. 485K. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in 
     section 485J, the Director of the Center may provide research 
     training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in 
     other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and 
     fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention 
     of disease, health promotion, the association of 
     socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, age and geographical 
     location and health, the social work care of individuals 
     with, and families of individuals with, acute and chronic 
     illnesses, child abuse, neglect, and youth violence, and 
     child and family care to address problems of significant 
     social concern especially in underserved populations and 
     underserved geographical areas.
       ``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center 
     may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or 
     traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such 
     stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and 
     subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director 
     determines necessary.
       ``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants 
     to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction 
     and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 485L. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist, 
     consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Director of the Center on matters related to the 
     activities carried out by and through the Center and the 
     policies with respect to such activities.
       ``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may 
     recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with 
     section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations, 
     and research and for the acquisition of grounds or 
     construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the 
     Center.
       ``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for 
     the Center--
       ``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the 
     Center with respect to research to be conducted by the 
     Center;
       ``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative 
     agreements for research or training and recommend for 
     approval applications for projects that demonstrate the 
     probability of making valuable contributions to human 
     knowledge; and
       ``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
       ``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal 
     investigation, information relating to studies that are being 
     carried out in the United States or any other country and, 
     with the approval of the Director of the Center, make such 
     information available through appropriate publications; and
       ``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and 
     conferences.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed 
     of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not 
     more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the 
     advisory council shall include--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Director of NIH, the Director of the Center, the Chief Social 
     Work Officer of the Veterans' Administration, the Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Associate 
     Director of Prevention Research at the National Institute of 
     Mental Health, the Director of the Division of Epidemiology 
     and Services Research, the Assistant Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services for the Administration for Children and 
     Families, the Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office 
     of Educational Research and Improvement, the Assistant 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Community 
     Planning and Development, and the Assistant Attorney General 
     for Office of Justice Programs (or the designees of such 
     officers); and
       ``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United 
     States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory 
     council to effectively carry out its functions.
       ``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not 
     to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
       ``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be 
     appointed from among the leading representatives of the 
     health and scientific disciplines (including public health 
     and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the 
     activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals 
     shall be professional social workers who are recognized 
     experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or 
     research; and
       ``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be 
     appointed from the general public and shall include leaders 
     in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics, 
     and management.

     The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council 
     in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members 
     do not all expire in the same year.
       ``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any compensation for service on the advisory council. 
     The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including 
     travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate in effect 
     for an individual at grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
       ``(c) Terms.--

[[Page S69]]

       ``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual 
     appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to 
     fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who 
     has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4 
     years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to 
     the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the prior term expired.
       ``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council 
     among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary 
     shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council 
     shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary 
     may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson 
     of the advisory council. The term of office of the 
     chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the 
     call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director 
     of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year. 
     The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
       ``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the 
     Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to 
     serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The 
     Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory 
     council such staff, information, and other assistance as the 
     council may require to carry out its functions. The Director 
     of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new 
     members of the advisory council to provide such members with 
     such information and training as may be appropriate for their 
     effective participation in the functions of the advisory 
     council.
       ``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council 
     may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under 
     section 485M--
       ``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the 
     advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its 
     objectives; and
       ``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction 
     and program and policy emphasis of the center.

     The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as 
     it may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 485M. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the 
     advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion 
     in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report 
     that shall consist of a description of the activities of the 
     Center and program policies of the Director of the Center in 
     the fiscal years for which the report is prepared. The 
     Director of the Center may prepare such additional reports as 
     the Director determines appropriate. The Director of the 
     Center shall provide the advisory council of the Center an 
     opportunity for the submission of the written comments 
     described in section 485L(g).

     ``SEC. 485N. QUARTERLY REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a quarterly report that contains a summary of 
     findings and policy implications derived from research 
     conducted or supported through the Center.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 74. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to 
participate in various health professionals loan program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to 
modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to 
provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the 
opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.
  Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with 
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan 
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of 
behavioral science expertise into our community of public health 
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution 
being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most 
distressing problems.
  The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical 
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title 
VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for 
the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically 
disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the 
provision of critical services to minority populations because often 
they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural 
framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community 
settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued 
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health 
care services to underserved communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 74

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthen the Public Health 
     Service Act''.

     SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
     nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in 
     professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
     offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after 
     ``veterinary medicine''.
       (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate 
     program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary 
     medicine''; and
       (3) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional 
     psychology''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine'' 
     and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional 
     psychology''.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
     Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``professional''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 75. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive 
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on the Rural 
Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003, a bill that responds to 
the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and 
disease prevention programs.
  Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently 
lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 
million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are 
without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where 
providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as 
geographical barriers lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge 
about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, 
language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to 
medical care.
  Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the 
result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without 
vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive 
immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries 
occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early 
symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and 
often develop into full-blown disorders.
  An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for 
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive

[[Page S70]]

Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for 
all health problems. The training of health care providers in 
prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in 
underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack 
preventive care training opportunities.
  Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers 
must be encouraged. Through such training programs, rural health care 
providers can build a strong educational foundation in the behavioral, 
biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team 
prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both 
health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation 
between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their 
services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall 
health of rural communities.
  The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003 would implement 
the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is 
based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific 
interventions for those risk factors.
  The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places 
a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By 
implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the 
potential overall health and financial savings are enormous.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 75

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Preventive Health Care 
     Training Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 754 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such 
     applicants to provide preventive health care training, in 
     accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners 
     practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent 
     practicable, include training in health care to prevent both 
     physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence 
     of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of 
     interdisciplinary training project applications.
       ``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using 
     assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care 
     practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant 
     involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a 
     rural area.
       ``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant 
     made or contract entered into under this section shall be 
     used--
       ``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending 
     rural community colleges or other institutions that service 
     predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling 
     the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
       ``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges 
     or other institutions that service predominantly rural 
     communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health 
     care training;
       ``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and 
     program evaluation skills in rural communities;
       ``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and 
     curricula with a specific prevention component; and
       ``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 77. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
ensure that social work students or social work schools are eligible 
for support under certain programs to assist individuals in pursing 
health careers and programs of grants for training projects in 
geriatrics, and to establish a social work training program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social 
workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health 
Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work 
training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for 
support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social 
work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of 
Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work 
to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure 
that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health 
Maintenance Organization Act.
  Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to 
people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide 
opportunities for social work training in health and mental health 
care.
  Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to 
our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing 
innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe 
it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers 
possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This 
bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and 
social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical 
importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I 
believe it is time to provide them with the recognition the deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 77

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthen Social Work 
     Training Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.

       (a) Health Professions School.--Section 736(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293(g)(1)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``graduate program in behavioral or mental 
     health'' and inserting ``graduate program in behavioral or 
     mental health including a school offering graduate programs 
     in clinical social work, or programs in social work''.
       (b) Scholarships, Generally.--Section 737(d)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293a(d)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``mental health practice'' and inserting 
     ``mental health practice including graduate programs in 
     clinical psychology, graduate programs in clinical social 
     work, or programs in social work''.
       (c) Faculty Positions.--Section 738(a)(3) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293b(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``offering graduate programs in behavioral and 
     mental health'' and inserting ``offering graduate programs in 
     behavioral and mental health including graduate programs in 
     clinical psychology, graduate programs in clinical social 
     work, or programs in social work''.

     SEC. 3. GERIATRICS TRAINING PROJECTS.

       Section 753(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294c(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``schools offering 
     degrees in social work,'' after ``teaching hospitals,''.

     SEC. 4. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 770 as section 770A;
       (2) by inserting after section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 770. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Training Generally.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to, or enter into contracts with, any public or nonprofit 
     private hospital, school offering programs in social work, or 
     to or with a public or private nonprofit entity (which the 
     Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such 
     grant or contract)--
       ``(1) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an 
     approved social work training program (including an approved 
     residency or internship program) for students, interns, 
     residents, or practicing physicians;
       ``(2) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to students, interns, 
     residents, practicing physicians, or other individuals, who 
     are in need thereof, who are participants in any such 
     program, and who plan to specialize or work in the practice 
     of social work;
       ``(3) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the 
     training of individuals who plan to teach in social work 
     training programs; and
       ``(4) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to individuals who are 
     participants in any such program and who plan to teach in a 
     social work training program.
       ``(b) Academic Administrative Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to or 
     enter into contracts with schools offering programs in social 
     work to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or 
     improve academic administrative units (which may be 
     departments, divisions,

[[Page S71]]

     or other units) to provide clinical instruction in social 
     work.
       ``(2) Preference in making awards.--In making awards of 
     grants and contracts under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     give preference to any qualified applicant for such an award 
     that agrees to expend the award for the purpose of--
       ``(A) establishing an academic administrative unit for 
     programs in social work; or
       ``(B) substantially expanding the programs of such a unit.
       ``(c) Duration of Award.--The period during which payments 
     are made to an entity from an award of a grant or contract 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed 5 years. The provision of 
     such payments shall be subject to annual approval by the 
     Secretary of the payments and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for the fiscal year involved to make the 
     payments.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2006.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available not less than 20 percent for awards of grants and 
     contracts under subsection (b).''; and
       (3) in section 770A (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``other than section 770,'' after ``carrying out this 
     subpart,''.

     SEC. 5. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES.

       Section 1302 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300e-1) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``clinical 
     social worker,'' after ``psychologist,'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``and psychologists'' 
     and inserting ``psychologists, and clinical social workers''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``clinical social 
     work,'' after ``psychology,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 78. A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain 
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA. The VHA has a 
long history of maintaining a staff of the very best health care 
professionals to provide care to those men and women who have served 
our country in the Armed Forces.
  Recently, a distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans 
has come to my attention: the recruitment and retention of 
psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has 
become a significant problem.
  The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the 
behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a 
significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, 
substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have received 
funding from the Congress in recent years.
  Psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the 
successful implementation of these programs. Consequently, the high 
vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA might seriously 
jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient 
care in the VHA.
  Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of 
factors including a pay scale that is not commensurate with private 
sector rates together with a low number of clinical and professional 
psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel 
Management, OPM. Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience, and 
are hired immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when 
successful, takes up to six months or longer.
  Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more 
significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA 
psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. 
Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have 
almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. 
Under the present system, psychologists cannot be recognized, or 
appropriately compensated, for excellence or for taking on additional 
responsibilities such as running treatment programs.
  In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA 
supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with 
behavioral and mental health disorders deserve better psychological 
care from more experienced professionals than they are now receiving.
  Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care 
providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without 
question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention 
difficulties that I have mentioned.
  Title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help 
ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems. The length of time 
needed to recruit psychologists could be shortened by eliminating the 
requirement for applicants to be rated by the OPM. This would also 
encourage the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns 
by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable 
applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position.
  It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated 
by the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial 
incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. 
Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities 
as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, 
implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, making significant 
contributions to the science of psychology, and becoming a Fellow of 
the American Psychological Association.
  The addition of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this 
amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment 
issues and enhance the quality of care for our veterans and their 
families.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 78

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran's Health 
     Administration Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF 
                   PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``who hold diplomas as 
     diplomates in psychology from an accrediting authority 
     approved by the Secretary''.
       (b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``Certified or'' and 
     inserting ``Professional psychologists, certified or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``Certified or'' and 
     inserting ``Professional psychologists, certified or''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     begin to make appointments of professional psychologists in 
     the Veterans Health Administration under section 7401(3) of 
     title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), 
     not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 79. A bill to allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations 
required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
offenders with mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical 
social worker; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical 
social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the 
Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.
  I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system 
to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health 
expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would 
be very much in our Nation's best interest.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 79

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Psychiatric and 
     Psychological Examinations Act of 2003''.

[[Page S72]]

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

       Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended, in the first sentence, by striking ``psychiatrist or 
     psychologist'' and inserting ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or 
     clinical social worker''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. IOUYE:
  S. 80. A bill to recognize the organization known as the National 
Academies of Practice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. 
This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have 
made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, 
medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, social 
work, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy. When fully established, each 
of the ten academies will possess 100 distinguished practitioners 
selected by their peers. These academics will be able to provide the 
Congress of the United States and the executive branch with 
considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective 
of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing 
health care.
  As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding 
the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best 
interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to 
the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care 
practitioners.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 80

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Academies of 
     Practice Recognition Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CHARTER.

       The National Academies of Practice organized and 
     incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, is 
     hereby recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter.

     SEC. 3. CORPORATE POWERS.

       The National Academies of Practice (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``corporation'') shall have only those powers granted 
     to it through its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed 
     in the State in which it is incorporated and subject to the 
     laws of such State.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES OF CORPORATION.

       The purposes of the corporation shall be to honor persons 
     who have made significant contributions to the practice of 
     applied psychology, dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry, 
     osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, 
     pharmacy, and other health care professions, and to improve 
     the practices in such professions by disseminating 
     information about new techniques and procedures.

     SEC. 5. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       With respect to service of process, the corporation shall 
     comply with the laws of the State in which it is incorporated 
     and those States in which it carries on its activities in 
     furtherance of its corporate purposes.

     SEC. 6. MEMBERSHIP.

       Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the 
     rights and privileges of members shall be as provided in the 
     bylaws of the corporation.

     SEC. 7. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; COMPOSITION; RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The composition and the responsibilities of the board of 
     directors of the corporation shall be as provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and in 
     conformity with the laws of the State in which it is 
     incorporated.

     SEC. 8. OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

       The officers of the corporation and the election of such 
     officers shall be as provided in the articles of 
     incorporation of the corporation and in conformity with the 
     laws of the State in which it is incorporated.

     SEC. 9. RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Use of Income and Assets.--No part of the income or 
     assets of the corporation shall inure to any member, officer, 
     or director of the corporation or be distributed to any such 
     person during the life of the charter under this Act. Nothing 
     in this subsection shall be construed to prevent the payment 
     of reasonable compensation to the officers of the corporation 
     or reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts 
     approved by the board of directors.
       (b) Loans.--The corporation shall not make any loan to any 
     officer, director, or employee of the corporation.
       (c) Political Activity.--The corporation, any officer, or 
     any director of the corporation, acting as such officer or 
     director, shall not contribute to, support, or otherwise 
     participate in any political activity or in any manner 
     attempt to influence legislation.
       (d) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The 
     corporation shall have no power to issue any shares of stock 
     nor to declare or pay any dividends.
       (e) Claims of Federal Approval.--The corporation shall not 
     claim congressional approval or Federal Government authority 
     for any of its activities.

     SEC. 10. LIABILITY.

       The corporation shall be liable for the acts of its 
     officers and agents when acting within the scope of their 
     authority.

     SEC. 11. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Books and Records of Account.--The corporation shall 
     keep correct and complete books and records of account and 
     shall keep minutes of any proceeding of the corporation 
     involving any of its members, the board of directors, or any 
     committee having authority under the board of directors.
       (b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The corporation shall 
     keep at its principal office a record of the names and 
     addresses of all members having the right to vote in any 
     proceeding of the corporation.
       (c) Right To Inspect Books and Records.--All books and 
     records of the corporation may be inspected by any member 
     having the right to vote, or by any agent or attorney of such 
     member, for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.
       (d) Application of State Law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law.

     SEC. 12. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The corporation shall report annually to the Congress 
     concerning the activities of the corporation during the 
     preceding fiscal year. The report shall not be printed as a 
     public document.

     SEC. 13. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND OR REPEAL CHARTER.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly 
     reserved to Congress.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
     territories and possessions of the United States.

     SEC. 15. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

       The corporation shall maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 or any corresponding similar provision.

     SEC. 16. TERMINATION.

       If the corporation fails to comply with any of the 
     restrictions or provisions of this Act the charter granted by 
     this Act shall terminate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 81. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to 
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social 
Workers' Recognition Act of 2003 to correct a continuing problem in the 
Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide 
clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent 
providers of quality mental health care services.
  Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and 
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance 
plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, 
does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by 
clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' 
compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am 
introducing corrects this problem.
  It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social 
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, 
but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation 
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations 
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal 
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation 
mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an 
undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the 
only available providers of mental health care.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 81

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Social Workers' 
     Recognition Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL 
                   WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

       Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''; and

[[Page S73]]

       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     clinical social workers,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 82. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 
certain helicopter uses from ticket taxes on transportation by air; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would 
exempt from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes on air 
transportation by helicopters of individuals and cargo for the purpose 
of conducting removal and environmental restoration activities relating 
to unexploded ordnance on the Island of Kahoolawe.
  The Kahoolawe Island Unexploded Ordnance Clearance and Environmental 
Restoration Project is authorized under Title X of the Fiscal Year 1994 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Island of Kahoolawe is 
uninhabited, and it served as a bombing range for the Department of 
Defense until 1990. The Department of Defense is currently in the 
process of cleaning up and restoring Kahoolawe for its eventual return 
to the State of Hawaii.
  The Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes help support our 
nation's air traffic systems and airport infrastructures. However, 
there are no airports or landing zones on Kahoolawe that receive 
benefits from the Trust Fund. In addition, the taxes place an undue 
burden on the air transportation services provided to the Kahoolawe 
Clearance Project. Compared to a normal airline whose aircraft make 
fewer trips per day over much longer distances, the services provided 
to the project are very frequent, with many trips over very short 
distances. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 82

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN HELICOPTER USES FROM TAXES ON 
                   TRANSPORTATION BY AIR.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Additional Exemption for Certain Helicopter Uses.--No 
     tax shall be imposed under this section or section 4271 on 
     air transportation by helicopter for the purpose of 
     transporting individuals and cargo to and from sites for the 
     purpose of conducting removal and environmental restoration 
     activities relating to unexploded ordnance.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4041(l) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(f) or (g)'' 
     and inserting ``(f), (g), or (i)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transportation beginning after June 30, 1997, 
     and before August 1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 86. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
credit for the health insurance expenses of small businesses; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am introducing the Small Employer Tax 
Assistance for Health Care Act of 2003, SETAH, a bill to provide tax 
subsidy to small employers to help them provide health coverage to 
their workers.
  The problem of the uninsured is a problem of working families, but 7 
out of 10 workers without coverage are not even offered coverage 
through their employers. This bill provides assistance and incentives 
for those employers who are least likely and least able to afford 
coverage for their workers, small, low-wage firms.
  Statistics show that small firms are half as likely to offer coverage 
as large firms, while the offer rate for small low-wage firms is cut 50 
percent further, compared to small high-wage firms.
  This legislation will offer a significant tax break to those 
businesses in order to subsidize their purchase of health insurance. 
The credit is designed sensibly, so that rates adjust slowly as firm 
size and average wage increase.
  Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that grow beyond the 
eligibility limitation. For instance, a tax credit for firms smaller 
than 20 means a firm's decision to add the 21st worker could add 
thousands to their tax bill. Tax credits should help businesses and 
their workers prosper, and not unintentionally discourage business 
growth.
  The bill would contain the following elements:
  50 Percent Credit to Help Workers at Smallest and Lowest-Wage firms. 
All firms smaller than 10, whose average worker earns minimum wage, are 
the ones who have the lowest insurance offer rates. These firms will 
receive a 50 percent tax credit up to $2000 per individual policy, and 
$5000 per family.
  Double Phase-Out. Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that 
grow beyond the eligibility limitation. Using a ``double phase-out'' so 
that the tax credit diminishes gradually as firm size and average wage 
increase, eliminating the ``cliff effect'' that would otherwise 
discourage firms from adding employees or increasing wages.
  5 Percent Floor. All firms under 50 workers, with average wages under 
$30,000, would be protected by a 5 percent floor.
  Simplified Eligibility for All Small Low-Wage Firms. Restricting tax 
credits to only those firms who did not previously offer can 
unintentionally give small businesses starting out an incentive not to 
offer health insurance. By contract, the SETAH credit will be available 
to all small, low-wage firms, defined as smaller than 50 employees, and 
under $30,000 in average wages, that quality, regardless of whether 
they have offered coverage before. This helps employers who are doing 
the right thing and encourages others to follow their example by 
offering coverage.
  Fiscally Prudent Targeting. Because the credit is well-targeted to 
firms who are unlikely to offer anyway, the credit remains less 
duplicative and more efficient than other credits. At an overall cost 
of $6 to $7 billion annually, the SETAH credit covers 3.3 million new 
individuals for roughly $2000 per newly insured individual, which is 
crucial in an era of fiscal prudence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 87. A bill to provide for homeland security block grants; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the kind of 
economic policies we are pursuing because I believe in the absence of 
changing our economic policies we are not likely to get our economy 
growing again. It is important we do all we can to make the right 
decisions.
  I know the President was in Chicago today. He addressed his proposal 
for the economy. I understand it is a package of approximately $650 
billion, most of which concern some provisions that will affect 
relatively affluent Americans. I look forward to seeing what else is in 
that package.
  We have to recognize the economic challenges we now confront are not 
just ones in Washington but are throughout our Nation, in the capitals 
of our States, and in our cities. In Washington, we have to be 
cognizant of the ripple effect on revenues to our States and cities by 
the decisions we make.
  In fact, one of the unintended consequences of many of the changes 
that were made at the beginning of the 107th Congress with respect to 
tax policy and that are embedded in what the President is proposing 
will mean further reduction of revenues for State governments, which 
cannot print money, which have to balance budgets, which have to live 
within their means, and the net effect will be either States having to 
raise their taxes, local communities having to raise their property 
taxes, or dramatic cuts in services.
  Among those services that we cannot as a Nation afford to cut are the 
ones that directly bear on homeland security: Our police and law 
enforcement officers, our firefighters, and our first responders. Today 
I am reintroducing the Homeland Security Block Grant Act that would 
provide direct funding to our local communities.
  For me, this is one of our first orders of business because our first 
responders are our first line of defense at home.
  Since September 11, 2001, cities, counties, and towns, large and 
small,

[[Page S74]]

urban and rural, have responded to the call to be more vigilant, to 
beef up our homeland defenses. They have invested more than $2.6 
billion from their own budgets. They have purchased more equipment. 
They have provided training for emergency responders. They are doing 
the very best they can to deal with all of the new challenges and 
threats we face.
  I have met with mayors, fire commissioners, police chiefs, and other 
emergency workers who all tell me they do not have the resources they 
need in order to protect us.
  I have conducted a survey of towns, cities, and counties across New 
York. From Buffalo to the tip of Long Island, we have heard the same 
thing: Despite this body's passage of legislation creating a Homeland 
Security Department, they have yet to see any additional funding where 
they need it most, close to home.
  Most of the money that has been passed and sent to the States has not 
been addressed directly at beefing up local fire, police, and emergency 
responders but for a specialized purpose of confronting the challenge 
of bioterrorism.
  We have a declining economy, rising unemployment, terrible revenue 
problems in our cities and States, and our answer has been to create a 
new bureaucracy in Washington. I believe creating the new Homeland 
Security Department, without funding our first responders on the front 
lines, is like building a hospital without hiring doctors and 
nurses. We may have a good plan on paper, but we do not have the means 
to execute it.

  The bill I am introducing will give our first responders $3.5 billion 
to give them the resources they need to do what they know they must 
accomplish. We should not be determining in Washington how they spend 
this money. That should be done at the local level. What Buffalo needs 
may be different from Rochester which is different from Syracuse or 
Albany. It makes no sense to hold up this money any longer. We should 
disperse the money appropriated and we should funnel it, State to local 
communities, and we should be looking at what our unmet needs are.
  The Homeland Security Block Grant Act of 2003 will provide direct 
funding to our communities and first responders. That is where the 
money should go.
  I am delighted--my belief that this is the appropriate step to take 
is endorsed by the United States Conference of Mayors, the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association 
of Firefighters, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, and the Police Executive 
Research Forum.
  We did well today to deal with part of our problem when it comes to 
the unemployed. I look forward to working with my colleagues to deal 
with the other part, which are those who are chronically unemployed, to 
come up with ways of helping them be able to make a transition or just 
hold their families together until the economy turns around. I also 
hope we will address homeland security in a way that gets the money 
where it needs to be, on the front lines of our cities, our towns, with 
our police and our firefighters and emergency responders. That would 
send a strong signal that homeland security is not just a slogan, it is 
a reality throughout America.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 88. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend 
future reductions of income tax rates if the Social Security surpluses 
are used to fund such tax rate cuts; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have a whole list of every senator, 
and every candidate in last year's election, all coming out and saying 
we won't touch Social Security. The President of the United States 
promised Congress in his first address to a Joint Session in February 
2001 that all Social Security surplus money will be budgeted for Social 
Security and Social Security only.
  Now that everyone is talking about cutting taxes, I do not want to 
forget the promises made on Social Security. I want to hold everyone to 
their word, because that is what the American people who depend on 
Social Security want as priority one. So, today, I am introducing a 
bill that says if the Treasury Secretary of the United States 
determines that if on October 1, 2003, there is a Federal on-budget 
deficit, future reductions in income tax rates will be suspended. Once 
the deficit no longer exists, the tax reductions can be put in place 
again.
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do away with tax cuts, so long 
as you can pay for them. The purpose of this Act is simply to ensure 
that no Social Security surpluses be used to pay for any further tax 
cuts. I want to make sure Social Security will be around when everyone 
retires.
  So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to pass this and make Social Security secure once and for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 90. A bill to extend certain budgetary enforcement to maintain 
fiscal accountability and responsibility; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee has thirty days to report or be 
discharged.

                Legislation to Extend Budget Enforcement

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, to introduce legislation to 
extend budgetary enforcement and to maintain fiscal accountability and 
responsibility. this bill would ensure that the budget rules that 
govern the congressional budget process do not expire on April 15 of 
this year.
  On October 16 of last year, Senator Gregg and I joined with Senators 
Conrad and Domenici to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. 
The Senate agreed to our amendment, Senate amendment No. 4886 to S. 
Res. 304, but with a modification that limited the extension to April 
15. Thus the Senate must act before April 15 on legislation like that 
which Senator Gregg and I propose today, or we will risk allowing the 
Congress to legislate in an environment nearly completely unconstrained 
by budget discipline.
  The last 2 years have seen an unfortunate deterioration in the 
Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs--
balancing the Nation's fiscal books.
  In January of 2001, the Congressional budget Office projected that in 
the fiscal year that ended a few months ago on September 30, 2002, 
fiscal year 2002, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of 
$313 billion. In the actual event, however, the Government ran a 
unified budget deficit of $159 billion. That's a dramatic swing of $472 
billion--the disappearance of nearly half a trillion dollars--for that 
one year alone.
  And without counting Social Security, the Government ran a deficit of 
fully $318 billion in fiscal year 2002. Last year, the Government used 
$160 billion of income received by the Social Security trust fund to 
fund other Government programs.
  For the 4 years before this past year, the Government ran unified 
budget surpluses. The Government demonstrated that it can exercise 
fiscal restraint, if it chooses to.
  But now, CBO projects that under current policies, unified budget 
deficits will continue until 2006. And without counting Social 
Security, CBO projects that deficits will continue until 2011, when the 
hypothetical sunset of the tax cut brings us back to surplus again, 
just barely.
  And using more realistic assumptions of not sunsetting tax cuts just 
enacted and letting appropriations keep pace with inflation, CBO 
estimated last month in response to a request from Senator Voinovich 
and me that deficits will continue at least until 2009.
  We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to 
use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other 
government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our 
nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
  And we must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to 
the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to 
pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the 
Government in this generation chooses to spend on current

[[Page S75]]

consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to 
pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. 
We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with 
debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. 
And that is not right.
  That is why I am joining today with my colleague from New Hampshire 
to introduce this bill to extend the budget process. We need a strong 
budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.
  Our bill would extend the budget process for 5 years, to October 1, 
2007.
  Specifically, it would extend the requirement that entitlement and 
tax legislation be paid for, or trigger automatic cuts--called 
``sequesters''--in entitlement programs if they are not. We would 
provide that these automatic cuts would not take place when the 
Government is running a surplus.
  Similarly, our bill would extend the pay-as-you-go rule in Senate 
procedures, as well, maintaining 60-vote points of order that enforce 
the pay-as-you-go rule. As we did in our amendment at the close of the 
last Congress, our bill would prevent savings achieved in 
reconciliation legislation from being used to offset new spending or 
tax cuts in other legislation. And to ensure that there is no loophole 
for entitlements enacted in appropriations measures, our bill would 
provide that entitlement expansions and tax cuts added to 
appropriations bills would be subjected to the pay-as-you-go rule, as 
well.
  Our bill would extend other Congressional Budget Act enforcement 
mechanisms, as well. All the provisions of the Congressional Budget Act 
that now require 60 votes to waive would remain in effect in the Senate 
through October 1, 2007.
  Finally, our bill would call for appropriations caps. It would state 
the sense of the Senate that Congress and the President should 
negotiate and agree on the appropriate discretionary spending levels 
and extend the statutory discretionary spending caps for 2003 and 
beyond as early as possible in a manner consistent with fiscal 
discipline and accountability.
  That is what our bill would do. It is a straightforward bill. it is 
the least that we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound 
budgeting.
  We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government 
programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We 
must continue the discipline of the budget process.
  Together with my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, I will work 
to those ends. I urge my colleagues to join us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section-
by-section analysis of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Gregg-Feingold Budget Process Law Extension--Section-by-Section 
                                Analysis


 extending the pay-as-you-go requirement and automatic cuts in statute

       Subsection 1(a)(1) extends the requirement that entitlement 
     and tax legislation be paid for, or cause automatic cuts 
     (called ``sequesters'') in entitlement programs.
       Subsection 1(a)(2) provides that these automatic cuts would 
     not take place when the government is running a surplus.
       Subsection 1(b) pushes back the expiration of the 
     mechanisms that cause the automatic cuts to October 1, 2007.


                    extending budget act enforcement

       Subsection 2(a) provides that the provisions of the 
     Congressional Budget Act that require 60 votes to waive 
     Budget Act points of order will remain in effect in the 
     Senate through October 1, 2007.


            extending the pay-as-you-go rule in senate rules

       Subsection 2(b) extends the pay-as-you-go rule in the 
     Senate.
       Subsection 2(b)(1)(A) prevents savings achieved in 
     reconciliation legislation from being used to offset new 
     spending or tax cuts in other legislation.
       Subsection 2(b)(1)(B) extends the existing pay-as-you-go 
     point of order (in section 207 of the fiscal year 2000 budget 
     resolution, H. Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st Session)) 
     through October 1, 2007.
       Subsection 2(b)(2) provides that entitlement expansions and 
     tax cuts added to appropriations bills shall be subjected to 
     the pay-as-you-go rule, just as if they were part of 
     freestanding entitlement or tax legislation.


                    calling for appropriations caps

       Section 3 states the sense of the Senate that Congress and 
     the President should negotiate and agree on the appropriate 
     discretionary spending levels and extend the statutory 
     discretionary spending caps for 2003 and beyond as early as 
     possible in a manner consistent with fiscal disciplines and 
     accountability.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 S. 90

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b)(1), by striking ``enacted 
     before October 1, 2002,'' and inserting ``enacted before 
     October 1, 2007''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, there shall be no sequestration under this section for 
     any fiscal year in which a surplus exists (as measured in 
     conformance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
     of 1990).''.
       (b) Enforcement.--The second sentence of section 275(b) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is amended by striking ``2006'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF BUDGET POINTS OF ORDER AND RULES IN THE 
                   SENATE.

       (a) Extension of Supermajority Enforcement.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for 
     purposes of Senate enforcement through October 1, 2007.
       (b) Pay-As-You-Go Rule in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th 
     Congress, 1st Session) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(6), by inserting after ``paragraph 
     (5)(A)'' the following: ``, except that direct spending or 
     revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted 
     pursuant to reconciliation instructions since the beginning 
     of that same calendar year shall not be available''; and
       (B) in subsection (g), by striking ``April 15, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2007''.
       (2) Application to Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     enforcing this section, notwithstanding rule 3 of the Budget 
     Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory 
     statement of the committee of conference accompanying 
     Conference Report 105-217, during the consideration of any 
     appropriations Act, provisions of an amendment (other than an 
     amendment reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
     including routine and ongoing direct spending or receipts), a 
     motion, or a conference report thereon (only to the extent 
     that such provision was not committed to conference), that 
     would have been estimated as changing direct spending or 
     receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to 
     September 30, 2002) were they included in an Act other than 
     an appropriations Act shall be treated as direct spending or 
     receipts legislation, as appropriate, under section 207 of H. 
     Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st Session) as amended by this 
     section.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EXTENSION OF STATUTORY 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress and the 
     President should negotiate and agree on the appropriate 
     discretionary spending levels and extend the statutory 
     discretionary spending caps for 2003 and beyond as early as 
     possible during the 108th Congress in a manner consistent 
     with fiscal disciplines and accountability.
                                 ______
                                 

 By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Harkin):

  S. 91. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, to provide for 
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and 
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 
2003 would simply give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes 
associated with agricultural contracts. This legislation would not 
prohibit arbitration. Instead, it would ensure that the decision to 
arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided 
for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion.
  I certainly recognize that arbitration has its benefits. In certain 
cases, it can be less costly than other dispute settlement means. In 
certain other cases, it can remove some of the workload from our 
nation's overburdened court system. For these reasons, arbitration must 
be an option--but it should be no more than an option.
  Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of 
agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These 
provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the 
company, even when a violation of Federal and State law is suspected. 
Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are 
required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer

[[Page S76]]

at a severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of 
discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. Such disputes 
often involve instances of discrimination, fraud, or negligent 
misrepresentation. The effect of these violations for the individual 
farmer can be bankruptcy and financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration 
clauses make it impossible for farmers to seek redress in court.
  When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to 
access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial. 
Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to 
discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case, 
the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not 
prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information.
  Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to 
limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals, 
bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or 
birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a 
grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against 
farmers who join producer associations.
  During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote 
of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment to give farmers a choice of 
venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts.
  During the last session of Congress, 66 Senators cosponsored S. 1140, 
the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001, 
to provide similar protection from mandatory arbitration clauses in 
franchise agreements between auto dealers and manufacturers. This 
legislation was enacted at the end of the last session. It is my hope 
that we will be able to move this legislation in an equally efficient 
fashion.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 91

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock 
     or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing 
     agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or 
     poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
       ``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or 
     poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of 
     raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance 
     with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock 
     or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
       ``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry 
     contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
     controversy under the livestock or poultry contract, 
     arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if, 
     after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing 
     to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
       ``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is 
     elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry 
     contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the 
     contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
     for the award.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Livestock and poultry contracts.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract 
     entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or 
     extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 97. A bill to treat certain hospital support organizations as 
qualified organizations for purposes of determining acquisition 
indebtedness; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would 
extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the 
existing debt-financed property rules that apply to tax-exempt 
educational organizations, pension funds, and investment consortia of 
qualified schools and funds.
  In a June 21, 2002, article, the New York Times describes the 
financial straits that nonprofit hospitals now face. More and more 
people in our weakened economy are seeking medical care from nonprofit 
hospitals. As a condition for Federal tax exemption, nonprofit 
hospitals must provide significant charitable services. Fees from other 
patients, especially in orthopedics, cardiology, and oncology, have in 
the past, allowed nonprofit hospitals to cover the expense of caring 
for the poor.
  For-profit entrepreneurs, however, are better positioned to win away 
these specialty care patients because they are not burdened by the same 
requirement to provide indigent care. Consequently, investors and 
lenders have readily funded for-profit health care ventures. This 
available capital allows profit-making companies to build the most up-
to-date facilities in competing for the high-margin patient.
  No doubt, for-profit operations do offer charity care, but their 
profit orientation limits the amount they will provide. For example, 
residency and fellowship programs to train our doctors are not 
profitable, and, therefore, as the New York Times points out, nearly 
all the postgraduate medical education in the United States is provided 
by the nonprofit hospitals.
  Of course, rising costs, such as for wages, supplies, and insurance, 
further compound the problem of nonprofit hospitals of stretching their 
income to cover significant charitable services. In addition, many of 
these nonprofit hospitals cannot raise or borrow the capital to 
modernize. They cover operating costs by postponing hospital 
maintenance and deferring the purchase of new technology, exacerbating 
an already bad situation. Eventually, as the New York Times article 
documents, more and more nonprofit hospitals will be forced to sell 
their facilities to for-profit enterprises.
  The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu faces these very same 
financial difficulties. This 143-year-old nonprofit hospital system 
maintains the largest private, nonprofit hospital in my state. It is a 
teaching hospital that provides residency training in a number of 
areas, and it treated 18,000 inpatients and 200,000 outpatients in 
2001. With the only accredited trauma center in Hawaii, it served over 
40,000 individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Medicaid and 
Medicare patients comprise nearly 60 percent of all its admissions.
  In addition, the Center directly, or through its affiliates, operates 
community clinics throughout the state, conducts professional training 
programs, offers home health services, maintains a medical library, in 
addition to running a rural hospital on the rural, economically 
depressed Island of Molokai. Like other nonprofit hospitals, the Center 
provides significant charitable care, with nearly $23 million in 
uncompensated services in 2002.
  Further, like other nonprofit hospitals, it has grave problems 
raising the funds needed to support all these uncompensated services 
while at the same time renovating and expanding its treatment 
facilities. A recent report from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii 
estimated that the hospitals in my state, similar to hospitals 
nationwide, will face additional, major losses this year due to reduced 
reimbursements, higher costs, and greater demand for services.
  In the past, Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, 
universities, and pension funds to invest in real estate development so 
as to help meet these institutions' financial needs. Under the tax code 
these organizations can incur debt to develop their real estate 
holdings without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities. 
Our nonprofit teaching hospitals have equal if not more pressing needs 
and should have the same opportunity. Unless Congress wishes to assume 
responsibility for charitable health care, we must help our nonprofit 
hospitals, especially the teaching hospitals. My bill, which is 
identical to an amendment that the Senate had previously

[[Page S77]]

adopted during the debate of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, would allow support organizations for 
qualified nonprofit teaching hospital to engage in limited real estate 
activities. These nonprofit hospitals would thereby be able to 
supplement their investment income in order to meet the growing demand 
placed on them for more community service.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the New York 
Times article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 97

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITAL SUPPORT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS AS QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ACQUISITION 
                   INDEBTEDNESS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 514(c)(9) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property 
     acquired by a qualified organization) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at 
     the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:

       ``(iv) a qualified hospital support organization (as 
     defined in subparagraph (I)).''.

       (b) Qualified Hospital Support Organizations.--Paragraph 
     (9) of section 514(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) Qualified hospital support organizations.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (C)(iv), the term `qualified 
     hospital support organization' means, with respect to any 
     eligible indebtedness (including any qualified refinancing of 
     such eligible indebtedness), a support organization (as 
     defined in section 509(a)(3)) which supports a hospital 
     described in section 119(d)(4)(B) and with respect to which--

       ``(i) more than half of its assets (by value) at any time 
     since its organization--

       ``(I) were acquired, directly or indirectly, by 
     testamentary gift or devise, and
       ``(II) consisted of real property, and

       ``(ii) the fair market value of the organization's real 
     estate acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or devise, 
     exceeded 25 percent of the fair market value of all 
     investment assets held by the organization immediately prior 
     to the time that the eligible indebtedness was incurred.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `eligible 
     indebtedness' means indebtedness secured by real property 
     acquired by the organization, directly or indirectly, by gift 
     or devise, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to 
     acquire any leasehold interest in such real property or for 
     improvements on, or repairs to, such real property. A 
     determination under clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph 
     shall be made each time such an eligible indebtedness (or the 
     qualified refinancing of such an eligible indebtedness) is 
     incurred. For purposes of this subparagraph, a refinancing of 
     such an eligible indebtedness shall be considered qualified 
     if such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the 
     refinanced eligible indebtedness immediately before the 
     refinancing.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to indebtedness incurred after December 31, 2003.
                                  ____


               [From the New Yorks Times, June 21, 2002]

             Demand, but No Capital, at Nonprofit Hospitals

                           (By Reed Abelson)

       As nonprofit hospitals around the country struggle with a 
     surprising growth in admissions, many are finding it 
     increasingly difficult to raise the money they need to meet 
     the new demands on them.
       The need for capital is becoming so intense that nonprofit 
     hospitals are selling facilities to their for-profit cousins, 
     which are better able to find money to operate them, or 
     starting joint ventures in which for-profit companies put up 
     cash to renovate a hospital or expand into a new area. Others 
     make do with outdated facilities and medical equipment, even 
     as for-profit hospitals invest in new technologies.
       Critics of for-profit hospitals have long raised concerns 
     about how those institutions operate, pointing to instances 
     when they have acquired nonprofits and then cut the staff or 
     reduced the amount of charity care being provided. Other 
     experts say there are no significant differences in those 
     areas, and many for-profit companies say they intend to 
     provide the same care to patients but with better facilities.
       Still, nonprofit hospitals, roughly 85 percent of all the 
     hospitals in the United States, provide nearly all the 
     postgraduate medical education, and if nonprofits continue to 
     struggle financially, many of them will be trained doctors in 
     out-of-date facilities--or selling facilities to for-profit 
     companies that may prove to have no interest in operating 
     residency and fellow-ship programs for doctors.
       ``The needs are higher than they have been in the past,'' 
     said Bruce Vladeck, a professor of health policy at the Mount 
     Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Without access to 
     enough capital, many nonprofit hospitals, he fears, will 
     focus only on projects that can demonstrate a financial 
     return, like a new cardiology center. ``It's harder and 
     harder to finance esoteric stuff that isn't profitable,'' 
     he said, as well as basic services like pediatrics.
       Higher labor costs, rising malpractice insurance premiums 
     and other expenses have all battered the nonprofits' 
     finances, even if some have benefited from the growing demand 
     for their services.
       Since the beginning of 2000, Moody's Investors Service has 
     downgraded 121 nonprofit hospitals, affecting $34 billion of 
     bonds, and upgraded only 38 with $7 billion in bonds. About 9 
     percent of Moody's nonprofit hospital portfolio is now 
     considered below investment grade, compared with 7 percent in 
     199, and most hospitals are not even rated.
       ``We've got a majority of the nation's hospitals in serious 
     financial difficulty,'' said Carmela Coyle, a senior vice 
     president for the American Hospital Association.
       A number of hospitals, unable to make the kind of 
     investments needed, are taking dramatic steps:
       Catholic Health Initiatives, one of the nation's largest 
     nonprofit hospital chains, said in late May that it planned 
     to sell three hospitals in Albuquerque to Ardent Health 
     Services, a for-profit company that will invest at least $40 
     million in them.
       Memorial Hospital of Salem County agreed last November to 
     be bought by Community Health Systems, another for-profit 
     company. If the deal receives regulatory approval, Memorial 
     will become New Jersey's only for-profit acute-care hospital. 
     While Community Health has said it will invest $30 million in 
     the hospital, advocacy groups like New Jersey Citizen Action 
     have raised concerns about the change of the hospital's 
     status and its possible impact on charity care. Community 
     Health says it is committed to providing the same levels of 
     charity care as Memorial.
       In Fairmont, W. Va., the operations of the community 
     hospital are being turned over to Triad Hospitals, a for-
     profit company that has promised to spend $75 million to 
     build a new hospital.
       The flurry of deals is beginning to echo the situation in 
     the mid-1990's, when for-profit chains gobbled up many 
     nonprofit hospitals. ``There are several signs that 
     acquisition activity is heating up in the hospital sector,'' 
     said Nancy Weaver, an analysts for Stephens Inc.
       Many for-profit companies are flush with cash from growing 
     profits, a result of higher reimbursements, and surging stock 
     prices. These companies can readily find the money to invest, 
     sometimes by selling more stock or issuing corporate bonds.
       ``There is no question that this does put the nonprofits at 
     a disadvantage,'' said Stuart H. Altman, a professor of 
     national health policy at Brandeis University.
       HCA, for example, which was struggling to overcome huge 
     legal problems and overly aggressive expansion just a few 
     years ago, is planning $1.6 billion in capital spending this 
     year and plans to open a new hospital in Denver at a cost of 
     $147 million this year. Triad expects to make capital 
     investments worth roughly $350 million this year at 47 
     hospitals in 16 states.
       In some cases, for-profit hospitals are buying troubled 
     institutions that have been poorly managed for years. In 
     addition to much-needed capital, the new owners may bring in 
     stronger management and improved business practices.
       In other instances, the prospects of better access to 
     capital is leading some nonprofit hospitals to seek out joint 
     ventures with for-profit companies.
       ``We're seeing a lot of partnerships going on,'' said Ms. 
     Weaver, including for-profit companies providing capital to 
     build surgical centers in partnership with nonprofits. ``It's 
     an evolving model that is coming about because of the capital 
     issue.''
       Triad says it is in discussions with numerous nonprofit 
     hospitals about a variety of arrangements, including joint 
     ventures. Many hospitals ``are looking for ways to raise 
     money or access capital to remain competitive,'' said James 
     D. Shelton, Triad's chairman and chief executive. ``We're 
     probably seeing more of this in the last year than in the 
     last five to six years.''
       The alternatives to deals with for-profit companies are 
     few. In Louisiana, Slidell Memorial Hospital will be asking 
     voters to approve a new tax that would generate revenue to 
     pay off the $85 million it needs to borrow for renovations 
     and equipment, according to B. Clement, associate 
     administrator for business development at the hospital. 
     Slidell's board has consider selling the institution, but 
     would prefer it to remain nonprofit.
       A few nonprofit hospitals with solid credit ratings are 
     still borrowing money with relative ease. Early this year, 
     for example, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center of New 
     York issued $450 million bonds. Memorial expects to use some 
     of the money to build new facilities.
       But even the nonprofits with finances are being more 
     conservative in how they spend their money. ``We're very 
     conscious of how much debt we have on our books,'' Jerry 
     Judd, vice president for treasury services for Catholic 
     Health.
       That hospital system plans to spend about $500 million on 
     capital improvements this year, but that may not cover the 
     necessary investment in its Albuquerque hospitals. * * * 
     Health Services, a for-profit company, expects to take over 
     those details some time later this year.

[[Page S78]]

       Some analysts say the tough market environment is providing 
     needed discipline. James C. * * *, a professor of health 
     policy administration at the University California at 
     Berkeley, said many nonprofit hospitals have expanded into 
     areas like managed or physician practices that proved to be 
     disastrous strategies decisions.
       ``There have been too many adventures.'' he said.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 100. A bill to expand access to affordable health care and to 
strengthen the health care safety net and make health care services 
more available in rural and underserved areas; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to 
Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that 
builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private 
health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to 
millions more Americans.
  One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to 
affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many 
Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate 
coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care 
coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine.
  Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health 
insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without 
health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to 
forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a 
consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly 
medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or 
treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these 
individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on 
our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially 
challenged.
  Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are 
four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the 
emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often 
absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through 
increased fees and insurance premiums.
  Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with 
insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a 
self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or 
the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of 
health insurance is a common concern.
  Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much 
as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly 
burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. 
Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that 
if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them 
will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford 
to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after 
year.
  The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and 
families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly 
insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, 
we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing 
today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and 
private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable 
and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access 
to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health 
insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing 
coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net 
for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and 
underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term 
care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more 
equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare 
shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers 
to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, 
in turn drives up health care premiums.
  Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.
  First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising 
health care costs.
  Since most Americans get their health insurance through the 
workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health 
insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured 
Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. 
As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are 
in a family with a worker.

  Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small 
businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed 
by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health 
insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer 
coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their 
employees, but the cost is often just too high.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers 
cope with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small 
businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will 
encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health 
insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to 
continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.
  Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses 
in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small 
businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large 
companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They 
also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees 
among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. 
Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims 
over as many employees as large firms.
  Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing 
federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them 
with the planning, development, and operation of small employer 
purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health 
care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to 
purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a 
number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased 
numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs 
for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and 
spread the cost of health care over a broader group.
  The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration 
grant program for States, local governments and non-profit 
organizations to provide information about the benefits of health 
insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased 
productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would 
also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under 
State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small 
employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been 
enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health 
insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of 
small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of 
their health insurance premiums as a business expense.
  The legislation would also create a new program to encourage 
innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states 
conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group 
purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market 
reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. 
The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be 
encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as 
models for the nation.
  The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to 
affordable health are for individuals and families.
  One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to 
establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which 
provides insurance for the children of low-income

[[Page S79]]

parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to 
qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable 
health insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, 
including over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare 
program. Even so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified 
children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their 
parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance.
  Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives 
States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, 
the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the 
children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also 
use funds provided through this program to help eligible 
working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance 
plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family 
receives the health care they need.

  The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible 
legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number 
of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant 
women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. 
Giving States the option of covering these children and families under 
Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will 
help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently 
experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs.
  Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in 
finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this 
problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal 
grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through 
which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain 
affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance.
  And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and 
middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer-
provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public 
programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax 
credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to 
$3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage 
for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one 
or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families 
who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no 
government help.
  The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to 
strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over 
five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes 
community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These 
centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, 
provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans 
regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients 
treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage 
and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical 
part of our Nation's health care safety net.
  The problem of access to affordable health care services is not 
limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living 
in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of 
health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act 
therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National 
Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other 
clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.
  For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial 
incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and 
provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill 
passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National 
Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees 
and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction 
did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment 
amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment 
program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover 
their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes 
much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.
  In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps 
participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current 
law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve 
full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough 
volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some 
sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a 
dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part-
time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment 
and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional 
flexibility to meet community needs.
  Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by 
older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the 
aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that 
Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the 
costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or 
cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too 
many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are 
confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent 
or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that 
they will have to cover the costs themselves.

  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit 
for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to 
those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It 
will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term 
care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private 
long-term care insurance.
  Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted 
author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of 
medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our 
most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy 
behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three 
major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth 
highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: 
cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. 
These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the 
health care problems in Maine.
  Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to 
promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows 
that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention 
offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life 
and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to 
States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite 
wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a 
grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' 
such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote 
healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community 
organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or 
expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, 
physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, 
healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and 
safe school environment.
  And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote 
equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system 
rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high-
quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled 
citizens.
  According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the 
quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 
11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare 
spending.
  The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize 
higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not 
fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to 
favor urban

[[Page S80]]

areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states into 
account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of 
its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the 
early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify 
lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only 
served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states.
  As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers 
have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to 
shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The 
Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the 
highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the 
Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to 
legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ 
Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians 
and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic 
adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.
  The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for 
reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority 
in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the 
goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more 
Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care 
safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 101. A bill to authorize salary adjustments for Justices and 
judges of the United States for fiscal year 2003; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on this first day of the 108th Congress, I 
rise to address the serious matter of pay inequity in the Federal 
judiciary.
  As things stand now, nearly every Federal employee will receive a 
cost of living adjustment during 2003, every employee, that is, except 
Federal judges. This is because of a legislative prescription that 
requires Congress to authorize raises in the salaries of Federal 
judges. Although this COLA of roughly three percent may seem small and 
inconsequential, it makes a significant difference in light of the fact 
that Federal judges earn far less than many, it not most, of their 
counterparts in the private sector.
  In this 2002 year-end report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have 
not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. 
He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the 
judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might 
force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the 
bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for 
life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, 
and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the 
private sector.'' The Chief Justice lamented, ``Unless the 108th 
Congress acts, judges will not even receive the cost-of-living 
adjustment that nearly every other federal employee will receive during 
2003.'' He concluded by urging Congress and the President to ``take up 
this issue early in the new year.''
  Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill that will allow 
Federal judges to receive the COLA that other Federal employees are 
already slated to receive this year. Although the larger issue of 
minimizing the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector 
salaries still remains, this small step will resolve the salary 
inequity between Federal judges and other Federal employees. I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bipartisan 
measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 101

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL 
                   JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

       Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and 
     judges of the United States are authorized during fiscal year 
     2003 to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 
     section 461 of title 28, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 103. A bill for the relief of Lindita Idrizi Heath; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 103

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LINDITA IDRIZI 
                   HEATH.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 101(b)(1) and 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be eligible for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 
     under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to 
     lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Lindita Idrizi Heath enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered to 
     have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 
     eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
     245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Lindita Idrizi 
     Heath, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by one, during the current or next 
     following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Lindita Idrizi Heath under section 202(e) 
     of that Act.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.

       For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431; relating to the automatic 
     acquisition of citizenship by certain children born outside 
     the United States), Lindita Idrizi Heath shall be considered 
     to have satisfied the requirements applicable to adopted 
     children under section 101(b)(1) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(b)(1)).

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION.

       No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of Lindita 
     Idrizi Heath shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
     accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Burns, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Miller, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Specter, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 104. A bill to establish a national rail passenger transportation 
system, reauthorize Amtrak, improve security and service on Amtrak, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Defense Rail Act. This legislation is of vital importance to rail 
transportation, it provides funding for railroad security, Amtrak, 
investment in both freight and passenger rail, and the development of 
high speed corridors throughout the country.
  We have modified the security provision to reflect the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, otherwise, this is the same bill 
that the Commerce Committee reported last April by a vote of 20 to 3. I 
am joined by twenty five of my colleagues in introducing this 
bipartisan legislation. It is critical that the Senate take this bill 
up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroads are secure and we have 
adequate investment in both Amtrak and the development of high speed 
rail corridors to move us into the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Leahy, Ms.

[[Page S81]]

        Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 105. A bill to repeal certain provisions of the Homeland Security 
Act (Public Law 107-296) relating to liability with respect to certain 
vaccines; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to keep a promise I made in 
November. On this, the very first day of the 108th Congress, I am 
introducing a bill that will remove the controversial vaccine component 
liability provisions from the Homeland Security bill.
  I am joined by a long list of original cosponsors: Senators Daschle, 
Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Landrieu, Dodd, Dayton, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Durbin, 
Lautenberg, and Feinstein. The Homeland Security bill, signed into law 
by President Bush in December, contains a provision that protects that 
financial security of pharmaceutical companies, not the homeland 
security of our Nation.
  The newly minted law contains a provision that expands the liability 
projections that currently exist for vaccines to include other vaccine 
components, such as vaccine preservates like Thimerosal. This provision 
was included in the bill, at the last minute, with no debate and no 
committee hearings
  Thimerosal; was the subject of several class action lawsuits based on 
increasing research connecting this preservative, which contains 
mercury, to the rising incidence of autism in children.
  Now that the vaccine component provision has been signed into law, 
all of these cases are expected to be dismissed. I urge my colleagues 
to join me and to remove the component provision from the law before it 
is too late. If these cases are dismissed with prejudice, then many 
families will have nowhere to go to see justice for the harm their 
children suffered.
  While the research is not conclusive on the connection between 
Thimerosal and autism, was this narrowly written, unrelated provision 
in the Homeland Security law the way to respond to these concerns? 
Don't these children and their families merit the full protection under 
the law? Certainly, they deserve their day in court. The Homeland 
Security provision includes vaccine components in the National Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program, VICP, in which awards are limited to money 
available through its special trust fund.
  In 1988, Congress enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program as a no-fault alternative to the tort system for resolving 
claims resulting from adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines. 
This Federal no fault system is designed to compensate individuals, or 
families of individuals, who have been injured by childhood vaccines.
  Damages are awarded out of a trust fund that is financed by excise 
taxes of 75 cents per dose imposed on each vaccine covered under the 
program. There is a three year statute of limitations on bringing cases 
to the VICP. It is very likely that many families who joined the 
Thimerosal class action suits, now under the treat of dismissal, have 
exceeded the three year time limit. Therefore, these families will have 
no recourse whatsoever.
  An issue as serious as revising the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program certainly merits due Congressional process. Amending this 
program by including a provision in the Homeland Security bill was 
inappropriate and this serious mistake should be corrected. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and working to see it 
signed into law as soon as possible. We must remove the vaccine 
component liability provisions from the Homeland Security law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 105

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN VACCINE LIABILITY PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296) is amended--
       (1) by repealing sections 1714, 1715, 1716, and 1717; and
       (2) in the table of contents, by striking the items 
     relating to sections 1714, 1715, 1716, and 1717.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as 
     though enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296).

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak as a cosponsor of S. 105. 
This bill repeals provisions of the Homeland Security Act offering 
certain liability protections to pharmaceutical companies.
  Mr. President, these provisions protect the manufacturers of a 
vaccine additive called thimerosal. This additive is a mercury-based 
vaccine component. It was used extensively in the past, until some 
parents began to claim that it caused autism in their children.
  Those parents are now seeking their day in court against the 
manufacturers of the drug. And the effect of the provisions in the 
Homeland Security Bill is to steer claims away from the courts and to 
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
  I do not know whether the scientific evidence will ultimately support 
the parents' claim that their children's autism was caused by 
thimerosal. Right now, the research on the link between thimerosal and 
autism is inconclusive. But I do know that the manner in which these 
particular provisions were added to the Homeland Security law is just 
plain wrong.
  These provisions were at last-minute addition to the version of the 
Homeland Security Act that was passed in the House of Representatives. 
And like many things done at the last minute, without the benefit of 
thoughtful debate, these provisions were poorly conceived.
  The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, Dan Burton, 
expressed his concern about these provisions in a letter to his 
colleagues. He noted that the scientific debate about thimersoal was 
unresolved. And he argued that some parents of autistic children might 
lose all legal recourse if the provisions passed, because the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program has a narrow 3-year statute of limitations, 
and some parents may not have filed petitions on time. Chairman Burton 
pleaded with his colleagues not to ``stampede'' into cutting of the 
legal rights of these children ``without hearings and a full public 
debate.''
  Despite these pleadings, the provision remained in the House version 
of the Homeland Security Act.
  When the bill came to the U.S. Senate for consideration, many 
Members--on both sides of the aisle--expressed concern at the way that 
the provisions had been introduced. They argued that the provisions did 
not belong in the Homeland Security Act, and should be considered at 
some later time.
  Senators Daschle and Lieberman moved to strike these provisions from 
the Homeland Security legislation. In the hours before the vote, it 
appeared that the thimerosal language would indeed be struck--until the 
Republican leadership reportedly gave some Members assurances that the 
provisions would be struck in the next Congress. Unfortunately, enough 
Members accepted these assurances that the thimerosal provisions 
remained in the Homeland Security Act.
  Once the bill was signed into law, and the public became increasingly 
aware of what had happened, an interesting thing happened: No one would 
admit authorship of the provisions. The House majority leader's office 
initially claimed that it had been the White House's idea.
  The White House said that it had nothing to do with it. And the 
companies that were the beneficiaries of the provisions said that they 
were as surprised as anybody.
  So the public was left to ask: Who did this?
  This is not the way that Congress should legislate. What happened in 
this instance is deplorable, and it undermines public confidence in our 
legislative process.
  If there are good, legitimate reasons to give liability protection to 
the makers of thimerosal, let us have a thoughtful debate about them. 
Let us have hearings. I understand that the new majority leader, 
Senator Frist, has been working on legislation for some time in this 
regard. Senator Frist now controls the floor, and can ensure a prompt, 
thoughtful debate

[[Page S82]]

about reforms to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
  In the meantime, let us strip the thimerosal provisions currently in 
the Homeland Security Act.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Victims' Rights 
Amendment.
  The scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. Constitution, mainly 
through amendments, grants those accused of crime many constitutional 
rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, counsel, the right 
against self-incrimination, the right to be free from unreasonable 
searches and seizures, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to 
confront witnesses, and the right to due process under the law.
  The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For 
example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed 
of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, 
no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the 
victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays 
in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might 
be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of 
rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to 
suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands 
of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victims' 
Rights Amendment would bring balance to the judicial system by giving 
victims of violent crime the rights to be informed, present, and heard 
at critical stages throughout their ordeal.
  The amendment gives victims of violent crime the right: to reasonable 
and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of 
any release or escape of the accused; not to be excluded from such 
public proceeding; reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, 
sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and to adjudicative 
decisions that duly consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding 
unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the 
offender.
  These rights have been at the core of the amendment since 1996, when 
Senator Feinstein and I first introduced the Crime Victims' Rights 
Amendment. The amendment is the product of extended discussions with 
the White House, the Department of Justice, Representative Steve 
Chabot, Senators Hatch and Biden, law enforcement officials, major 
victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as Professor Larry 
Tribe and then-Professor Paul Cassell. The current version is similar 
to the version in the 107th Congress. As President Bush stated when 
announcing his support for the language of the amendment, the amendment 
was ``written with care, and strikes a proper balance.'' http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html. One of the 
nation's leading constitutional scholars, Harvard Law Professor 
Laurence Tribe, who is on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum 
from President Bush, concurred. Professor Tribe praised the Amendment's 
``brevity and clarity'' and commented, ``That you achieved such 
conciseness while fully protecting defendants' rights and accommodating 
the legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial power 
and presidential authority is no mean feat. . . . I think you have done 
a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of the Victims' Rights 
Amendment into a form that would be worthy of a constitutional 
amendment.'' Letter of April 15, 2002.
  If reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. Constitution. 
Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment was first 
recognized by President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 32 
states have passed similar measures, by an average popular vote of 
about 80 percent. These state measures have helped protect crime 
victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons. First, each amendment 
is different, and not all States have provided protection to victims; a 
Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime victims' 
rights for all Americans, just as the federal Constitution provides for 
the accused. Second, statutory and state constitutional provisions are 
always subservient to the federal constitution; so, in cases of 
conflict, the defendants' rights, which are already in the U.S. 
Constitution, will always prevail. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment 
would correct this imbalance.
  It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 400 
page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights and services 
was that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee 
fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office for Victims of Crime, New Directions from the Field: Victims' 
Rights and Services for the 21st Century 9, 1998. The report continued: 
``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure 
strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights 
laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the 
state and federal levels.'' Id. at 10. Further: ``Granting victims of 
crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the 
type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and 
has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right 
to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government 
deprives one of life, liberty, or property.'' Id.
  Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be 
in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change.'' But 
the history of our country teaches us that constitutional protections 
are needed to protect the basic rights of the people. Our criminal 
justice system needs the kind of fundamental reform that can only be 
accomplished through changes in our fundamental law, the Constitution. 
Attempts to establish rights by Federal or State statute, or even State 
constitutional amendment, have proven inadequate, after more than 
twenty years of trying. Then-Attorney General Reno has confirmed the 
point, noting that, ``unless the Constitution is amended to ensure 
basic rights to crime victims, we will never correct the existing 
imbalance in this country between defendants' constitutional rights and 
the haphazard patchwork of victims' rights.'' Senate Judiciary 
Committee Hearing, April 16, 1997, statement of Attorney General Janet 
Reno, at 41.

  On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, then Associate 
Attorney General, now a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
testified that ``the state legislative route to change has proven less 
than adequate in according victims their rights. Rather than form a 
minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a 
hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 
Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater 
recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline.'' Senate 
Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 28, 1998, statement of Associate 
Attorney General Ray Fisher, at 9.
  A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. 
Harvard Professor of Law Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing 
statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as experience to date sadly 
shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into 
conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer 
inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether 
those rights are genuinely threatened.'' Senate Judiciary Committee 
Hearing, March 24, 1999, statement of Laurence Tribe, at 6. He also 
stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence showing 
that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to 
protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to 
be honored in the breach . . . .'' Id. at 7. Indeed, according to a 
report by the National Institute of Justice, even in states that gave 
``strong protection'' to victims rights, fewer than 60 percent of the 
victims were notified of the sentencing hearing and fewer than 40 
percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. 
National Institute of Justice, Research

[[Page S83]]

in Brief, ``The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a 
Difference?'' at 4 (Dec. 1998).
  If crime victims are to have meaningful rights, those rights must be 
in the U.S. Constitution. As President Bush has stated, ``The 
protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when 
amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And . . . the Crime 
Victims' Rights Amendment is the right way to do it.'' http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html.
  The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment has strong bipartisan support in 
the House and Senate. Senator Feinstein is the lead Democratic sponsor. 
I would like to thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime 
victims and for her hard and very valuable work on the language. Also, 
a bipartisan group of 39 State Attorneys General has signed a letter 
expressing their ``strong and unequivocal support'' for an amendment. 
In January 1997, the National Governors' Association voted in favor of 
an amendment. In 1996 and 2000, both the Republican and Democratic 
Party Platforms called for a crime victims' rights amendment. 
Additionally, the amendment is supported by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and major national victims' rights 
groups, including Parents of Murdered Children, the National 
Organization for Victim Assistance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
MADD, the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Arizona Voice for 
Crime Victims, Crime Victims United, and, Memory of Victims Everywhere.
  The amendment has received strong support around the country. As I 
mentioned earlier, 32 states have passed similar measures--by an 
average popular vote of almost 80 percent.
  Since we first introduced the amendment in 1996, Nila Lynn has been 
murdered in my home State of Arizona. Nila and her husband Duane were 
three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Nila was shot in 
the back by Richard Glassel and died in Duane's arms. Despite the fact 
that Duane had a State constitutional right to be heard at Glassel's 
sentencing and despite the fact that Glassel was afforded the right to 
make a sentencing recommendation to the jury, Duane's voice was 
silenced because he had no U.S. Constitutional right to make a similar 
sentencing recommendation.
  For far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime 
victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. 
Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as 
criminals have rights and victims have none.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 1

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. The rights of victims of violent crime, being 
     capable of protection without denying the constitutional 
     rights of those accused of victimizing them, are hereby 
     established and shall not be denied by any State or the 
     United States and may be restricted only as provided in this 
     article.
       ``Section 2. A victim of violent crime shall have the right 
     to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding 
     involving the crime and of any release or escape of the 
     accused; the rights not to be excluded from such public 
     proceeding and reasonably to be heard at public release, 
     plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and the 
     right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the 
     victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and 
     just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. 
     These rights shall not be restricted except when and to the 
     degree dictated by a substantial interest in public safety or 
     the administration of criminal justice, or by compelling 
     necessity.
       ``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to 
     provide grounds for a new trial or to authorize any claim for 
     damages. Only the victim or the victim's lawful 
     representative may assert the rights established by this 
     article, and no person accused of the crime may obtain any 
     form of relief hereunder.
       ``Section 4. Congress shall have power to enforce by 
     appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. 
     Nothing in this article shall affect the President's 
     authority to grant reprieves or pardons.
       ``Section 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 
     years from the date of its submission to the States by the 
     Congress. This article shall take effect on the 180th day 
     after the date of its ratification.''.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in 
introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment.
  Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment 
drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of 
violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 
Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was 
a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised 
concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it 
read too much like a statute.
  Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I 
decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with 
constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law 
School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' 
concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department 
of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved 
draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same 
rights as the old amendment.
  Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be 
notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. 
It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated 
fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of 
the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it 
would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or 
offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our 
Constitution.
  We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the 
Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many 
reasons why we need a constitutional amendment.
  First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. 
Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate 
constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the 
U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about 
crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State 
constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is 
the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims 
need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict 
between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to 
balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling 
argument.
  Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' 
rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights 
amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ 
from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections 
for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a 
Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor 
for victims' rights.
  Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed 
when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at 
the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for 
victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because 
victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic 
rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not 
surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims.
  Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a 
criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural 
rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest 
notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the 
Constitution was drafted.
  Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State 
law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of 
Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice 
Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even

[[Page S84]]

in States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many 
victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that 
statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal 
constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the 
rights they are due.
  Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal 
statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the 
Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent 
crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 
percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal 
statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend 
the U.S. Constitution.
  The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a 
constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest 
Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a 
defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' 
rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear 
right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even 
though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of 
allowing the victims to do just that.
  Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime 
Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part 
that:
  A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at 
all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court 
determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if 
the victim heard other testimony at trial.
  That statute further states that Federal Government officers and 
employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of 
crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are 
accorded the[se] rights.''
  The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause 
of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure 
to accord to a victim the[se] rights.''
  In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case 
ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no 
victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the 
bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing:
  The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would 
not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a 
sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The 
judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the 
lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain 
eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, 
some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to 
leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing.
  Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider 
its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims 
then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' 
Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the 
victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The 
judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the 
``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct 
in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' 
constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence.
  The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for 
the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing 
under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally 
protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no 
``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked 
the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of 
Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of 
the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the 
victims. All to no avail.

  The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in 
Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute 
grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. 
This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous 
consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining 
that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of 
the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.''
  The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial 
under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as 
written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional 
questions about this legislation would be premature and would present 
questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he 
held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from 
attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial.
  The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the 
application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their 
request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the 
trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. 
Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result.
  A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a 
domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have 
standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not 
dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims 
of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still 
testify at sentencing.
  There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am 
pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed 
the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl 
amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our 
legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the 
Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights 
of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is 
one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right 
thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is 
the right way to do it.''
  I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both 
former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all 
expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. 
Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was 
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many 
of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am 
hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In 
addition I would vote the following:
  Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a 
victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called 
for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including 
Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft 
support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an 
amendment.
  Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered 
Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National 
Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law 
enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of 
Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support 
an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School 
Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment.
  The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty-
two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of 
almost 80 percent.
  I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring 
the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by 
this Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 
from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S85]]

                                Harvard University Law School,

                                    Cambridge, MA, April 15, 2002.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Feinstein and Kyl: I think that you have done 
     a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of the 
     Victims' Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of 
     a constitutional amendment--an amendment to our most 
     fundamental legal charter, which I agree ought never to be 
     altered lightly. I will not repeat here the many reasons I 
     have set forth in the past for believing that, despite the 
     skepticism I have detected in some quarters both on the left 
     and on the right, the time is past due for recognizing that 
     the victims of violent crime, as well as those closest to 
     victims who have succumbed to such violence, have a 
     fundamental right to be considered, and heard when 
     appropriate, in decisions and proceedings that profoundly 
     affect their lives.
       How best to protect that right without compromising either 
     the fundamental rights of the accused or the important 
     prerogatives of the prosecution is not always a simple 
     matter, but I think your final working draft of April 13, 
     2002, resolves that problem in a thoughtful and sensitive 
     way, improving in a number of respects on the earlier drafts 
     that I have seen. Among other things, the greater brevity and 
     clarity of this version makes it more fitting for inclusion 
     in our basic law. That you achieved such conciseness while 
     fully protecting defendants' rights and accommodating the 
     legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial 
     power and presidential authority is no mean feat. I happily 
     congratulate you both on attaining it.
       A case argued two weeks ago in the Supreme Judicial Court 
     of Massachusetts, in which a woman was brutally raped a 
     decade and a half ago but in which the man who was convicted 
     and sentenced to a long prison term has yet to serve a single 
     day of that sentence, helps make the point that the legal 
     system does not do well by victims even in the many states 
     that, on paper, are committed to the protection of victims' 
     rights. Despite the Massachusetts Victims' Bill of Rights, 
     solemnly enacted by the legislature to include an explicit 
     right on the part of the victim to a ``prompt disposition'' 
     of the case in which he or she was victimized, the 
     Massachusetts Attorney General, to who has yet to take the 
     simple step of seeking the incarceration of the convicted 
     criminal pending his on-again, off-again motion for a new 
     trial--a motion that has not been ruled on during the 15 
     years that this convicted rapist has been on the streets--has 
     taken the position that the victim of the rape does not even 
     have legal standing to appear in the courts of this state, 
     through counsel, to challenge the state's astonishing failure 
     to put her rapist in prison to begin serving the term to 
     which he was sentenced so long ago.
       If this remarkable failure of justice represented a wild 
     aberration, perpetrated by a state that had not incorporated 
     the rights of victims into its laws, then it would prove 
     little, standing alone, about the need to write into the 
     United States Constitution a national commitment to the 
     rights of victims. Sadly, however, the failure of justice of 
     which I write here is far from aberrant. It represents but 
     the visible tip of an enormous iceberg of indifference toward 
     those whose rights ought finally to be given formal federal 
     recognition.
       I am grateful to you for fighting this fight. I only hope 
     that many others can soon be stirred to join you in a cause 
     that deserves the most widespread bipartisan support.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Laurence H. Tribe.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget and 
protect Social Security surpluses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When we were in 
deficit and when we were in surplus, I have always said, if we could 
adopt one fundamental reform to the way the Federal Government does 
business, this is it. The fiscal events of the last couple years have 
again demonstrated the need for this long-term, fundamental, permanent 
reform.
  For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the 
Constitution is our acknowledgment that, in exceptional cases, a 
problem rises to such a level that it can be adequately addressed only 
in the Constitution, by way of a Constitutional amendment.
  For four years in a row, a modern record, the first time since the 
1920s, Congress balanced the Federal budget. The first Republican 
Congresses in 40 years made balancing the budget their top priority, 
and did what was necessary, working on a bipartisan basis, to run the 
kind of surpluses we need to pay down the national debt and safeguard 
the future of Social Security.
  Then events intervened.
  A return to budget deficits was caused by an economic recession and a 
war begun by a terrorist attack. Even before taking office, President 
Bush correctly foresaw the coming recession and prescribed the right 
medicine, the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 2001, that has bolstered the 
economy and prevented a far worse recession.
  Sadly, at least on the budget front, the Senate did not rise to the 
challenge. Last year, many of us were deeply disappointed by the 
Senate's failure to pass a budget resolution for the first time in the 
history of the Budget Act. That failure only made the need for fiscal 
discipline all the more evident, as we saw a return to deepening 
deficit spending.
  The return to deficit spending can and should be a temporary 
phenomenon. We will rebound from the recent economic slowdown. And we 
must do whatever it takes to win the war, that's a matter of survival 
and of protecting the safety and security of the American people. 
Beyond that, we must keep all other Federal spending under control, so 
that we return, as soon as possible, to balancing the budget.
  In other words, the return to deficit spending will be a temporary 
problem only if we make a permanent commitment to the moral imperative 
of fiscal responsibility.
  We always did, and always will, need a Balanced Budget Amendment to 
our Constitution.
  Even in the heady days of budget surpluses, I always maintained the 
only way to guarantee that the Federal Government would stay fiscally 
responsible was to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
  Before we balanced the budget in 1998, the government was deficit 
spending for 28 years in a row and for 59 out of 67 years. The basic 
law of politics, to just say ``yes'', was not repealed in 1998, but 
only restrained some, when we came together and briefly faced up to the 
grave threat to the future posed by decades of debt.
  Now, the government is back to borrowing. And for some, a return to 
deficit spending seems to have been liberating, as the demands for new 
spending only seem to be multiplying again.
  That is why, today, I am again introducing a Balanced Budget 
Amendment to the Constitution and calling upon my colleagues to send it 
to the states for ratification. The amendment I introduce today is the 
same one I cosponsored last year, which would not count the Social 
Security surplus in its calculation of a balanced budget. Those annual 
surpluses would be set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of 
Social Security beneficiaries.
  It's a new day, a new year, and a new Senate. We have the opportunity 
of a fresh start and, hopefully, the wisdom of experience. On this 
first day of the 108th Congress, with the first piece of legislation I 
am introducing this year, I call on the Senate to safeguard the future, 
by considering and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
Constitution, a Bill of Economic Rights for our future and our 
children.

                          ____________________